|
This mighty annual open is underway in Philadelphia. There's a strong Indian contingent in Philly this year, along with the usual host of strong nationals and internationals questing for the giant first prize. $40,000 is the given top, but that's largely based on number of entries. They should know actual prize list by now. I haven't seen a complete participant list either. The early results are only for the extended 7-day schedule and most of the big guns play the accelerated schedules. It would be nice to see a complete participant list.
The event is a qualifier for the 2007 US Championship, with two spots available. (National Open and US Open the same.) What's this, you say, the 2007 championship? Do tell? I know the feeling. The AF4C has, if not dropped the ball, left it spinning in the air for too long. I spoke with AF4C prez Erik Anderson a few weeks ago and as usual he has a lot going on. He's spoken directly with USCF president and major tourney organizer Bill Goichberg to keep the qualifier process going ad hoc, but there doesn't seem to be any concrete plan yet, leaving the players largely in the dark.
This situation has been exacerbated by the departure of John Henderson from Seattle back to Glasgow. John handled championship chess affairs for the AF4C and it's not clear whether or not he'll be back handling those duties. I hope so. I understand that the $75 qualification fee has been abolished, although some players have already paid it for earlier events and one player, Daniel Ludwig, has been told that he didn't qualify because he didn't pay the fee, although he won the US Masters!
I'm hoping for enough basic info to update the official US championship website. As of now, I don't know much more than you and most of that is not officially confirmed so it isn't of much use. There are big plans and at least one very big sponsor on the hook. What does seem clear is that there will be a separate women's event this time.
Tiviakov brings home the Dutch championship and Rublevsky took clear first at the Aerosvit-Foros event. The cynical Grischuk disgraced himself by taking a short draw with white against teammate Rublevsky in the final round. (Of Rublevsky's last four games there were draws of 19, 20, and 16 moves. Gee, let's whine about prize funds and lack of sponsorship.) Ivanchuk, needing a win to tie for first, pressed against Shirov but was denied. Rublevsky's Olympiad teammates must be wondering why he couldn't play like this in Turin, where he lost his last three games.
The only decisive game of the final round was between tail-enders Karjakin and Volokitin, and they put on a show. Volokitin's stunning 29..Rd1 wasn't enough to save the game, but it's a hall of fame worthy combination nonetheless. It was Karjakin's only win. Ponomariov's poor -2 result is noteworthy after his recent return to the top ten. Nisipeanu's nice 11.f4!? novelty against Grischuk is worth a look. The principled response 11..gxf4 deserves a test. 12.Qd2 e5 and d5 is a nightmare hole.
Magnus Carlsen and my buddy Sergey Shipov are leading the Midnight Sun event in Tromsø, Norway. They both have 5/6 and will face each other in the next round. Not many GMs made the trip but it looks like a pretty place. ChessBase has a detailed report from a few days ago.
Update: Shipov beats Carlsen to move into clear first with two rounds to play!
Comments
Go, Shipov! ChessPro.ru readers ar rooting for their favorite comentator :)
Posted by: soikins at June 30, 2006 06:27
Is there really evidence that sponsors tend to stay away for fear of too many draws? I have believed chess sponsors to be too busy puffing on their cigars to care about the quality of what their money is spent on.
I believe it was Devyatkin who wrote a very sharp tongue-in-cheek piece editorial for chesspro.ru explaining how there was a mass conspiracy to demotivate the Russian players for the Olympiad, to stop them from doing prep work and create a lack of team atmosphere. This is something that fans of Russian teams in this and other sports are sadly too familiar with.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 30, 2006 09:24
The Grischuk-Rublevsky draw in Aerosvit Rd 11 confused the heck out of me. I initially thought that Grischuk was an extreme weenie. The final position looked very unclear. If White wanted a "cynical draw", why did he sacrifice the piece and use a whole bunch of time? I asked on the message boards and got no answer. But a couple of days later, GM Mikhail Golubev implied that Grischuk offered the draw because he realized that he had miscalculated a key variation (presumably this was revealed in post-mortem or press conference). So, while I'm always willing to excoriate short non-competitive draws, there may be *some* legitimate reason here.
Posted by: geeker at June 30, 2006 09:58
Volokitin's Rd1 has reminded me of my old game against Maria Manakova, where I missed a similar combination on move 23 (which was the best way to win):
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1398671
Posted by: Stan Kriventsov at June 30, 2006 10:30
Yuri I'm not sure how you could do a study on this which might give the best evidence.
But certainly viewers are disappointed by short draws. It would seem sponsors want viewers.
More evidence is that it seems organizers believe its important - the organizers of Linares and Sophia both make it clear they don't want short draws. No organizer I ever heard said he *wanted* allot of short draws.
So I think there is some evidence there that short draws are at least not desirable.
My order of priority is this when watching chess:
Primary: I want my favorites to win the event.
Secondary: I want long hard fought games.
This is no different than other sports for me. I want my favorites to take short draws if it is to thier advantage but all things being equal I want long games.
Posted by: Niceforkinmove at June 30, 2006 11:01
sorry Mig for today's loss in the only tournament that counts right now...
Posted by: paul at June 30, 2006 15:13
http://www.fff.fr/
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at June 30, 2006 16:58
Deutschland vor! :o))
Posted by: Albrecht von der Lieth at June 30, 2006 19:09
nfm,
I don't think you could do a study on this, which is part of my point--to make an assertion like "short draws (or draws generally) repel sponsors" you have to rely on statements from sponsors themselves or stories.
It is easy for us as chess fans or viewers to say that we want full length battles. But do sponsors generate money from people viewing their events? Maybe a bit for Olympiad or some other bigger websites with lots of commercial links, but even then such traffic is minor and non-existent for a lot of tournament sites.
Sophia is a tournament designed not to have short draws. It is a worthy concept. But for both them and Linares the case seems to be of a chess fan who wants to put forth a certain type of event. Had they been unable to put forth a low-draw affair I doubt that they would have chosen to withdraw their money.
My question therefore is, is there evidence for presence of chess sponsors who would be willing to promote events if only the results were more, shall we say, combative? Or even more aesthetically pleasing? And if so, what is there to prevent them from setting up a tournament under MTel rules.
I am not sure that the presence of a few more chess fans who usually view high profile tournaments anyway, makes difference in revenue of people like Corus and Dannemann.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 30, 2006 22:24
The 11th and final round is today in Ukraine after six draws in the 10th round left the standings unchanged. Sergey Rublevsky leads with an impressive seven points. He has black against Grischuk in the final round and Ivanchuk is a half-point back with white against Shirov, so nothing is certain. Bologan is still in the mix with six.
As the veterans push on the podium, it's been a disastrous event for most of the top young players. Volokitin, Karjakin, and Harikrishna haven't shown endurance after a full Olympiad schedule. Or, somebody has to finish last and it's a very strong event. Play has been combative but spotty, likely due to Olympiad tiredness and the funky single time control (120'+30").
I'm not sure Shirov had great endgame winning chances against Areschenko in round ten, but 52.c5 hanging two pawns is as unlikely a super-GM blunder as you'll likely to see, although he saved the draw when Black apparently missed a forced win:
66..Rc3+ 67.Kd4 Qd2 68.Bd3 (diagram) Rc4+!! 69.Kxc4 Qb4+ 70.Kd5 Qc5# Ouch. Single time control games are not classical chess. Areschenko's attempt to win a drawn pawn endgame were foiled by precise play. Would you have known that 76.Kd4 is the only move to hold the draw? If not, practice your opposition play.
In other tourney news, Sergei Tiviakov is closing in on the Dutch championship title after beating defending and six-time champ Loek van Wely with black.
Comments
That is a sweet MATE! It reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw, "Chess players mate better." Obviously not true during time pressure.
I wonder if Shirov saw it after playing Bd3. If so, I wonder if there was a tell-tale bead of sweat forming on his forehead that Are-stink-o failed to see. Always double check your opponent right before you make your move to make sure they are on their toes with their poker face. Of course, as Mig pointed out, it was probably zeitnot on move 52 and 68.
Posted by: Todd C. Reynolds at June 28, 2006 09:45
Mig, I was in Amsterdam last weekend, and I heard some gossip from the tournament. The winner of the Dutch Championships will receive free car rental for 6 months. Fair enough says you, but not Tiviakov. He doesn't drive, so getting a car for 6 months won't do him any good. He's threatening to sue for financial compensation. I guess, he could pass it on to Van Wely who apparently likes driving fast cars into walls and probably could do with a new car.
In Ireland we have an over 65's event. But in Hilversum, the Over 90's Senior championship is taking place. Is this a record? Can any country do better?
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan O'Connor at June 28, 2006 10:23
I'm sure the Armenians can do better.
Posted by: greg koster at June 28, 2006 13:56
The top 3 each draw, and Rublevsky wins it!
On the Dutch side, Tiviakov wins his final game to take the championship with an impressive 8/10. Sokolov must have been wondering, 'What do I need to do to win this darn thing?' His 7.5 is good enough to win most years...
Posted by: cynical at June 28, 2006 14:23
There is one more round for the Dutch championship
Posted by: allan at June 28, 2006 15:11
After watching hundreds of FIDE control games (90'+30") it's clear that just adding minutes isn't the issue. The players inevitably end up on increment before move 40. The importance of multiple controls was demonstrated eons ago.
Posted by: Mig at June 28, 2006 19:56
Chess players mate better, but not when they're rushed in time pressure.
Posted by: Julian Maltese at June 28, 2006 21:53
Another mediocre tournament for Shirov. I can't remember the last time he had a really good performance.
Posted by: macuga at June 29, 2006 05:40
Hi folks anyone knows when Dordmund is starting? Is it already decided who will play?
Posted by: Ando at June 29, 2006 06:33
Hi, Ando
July 29th:
Kramnik, Leko, Svidler, Aronian, Naiditsch, Adams, Gelfand and Jobava.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 29, 2006 10:52
Baadur Jobava
--about 23 yrs old
--from Georgia
--rated 2646
--world's #62
Posted by: greg koster at June 29, 2006 12:28
I assume Dortmund participation is by special invitation only. I wonder how a #62 gets in ahead of our own Naka who is higher on the list.
Posted by: Bradford at June 29, 2006 13:19
Jobava won the Aeroflot tournament, which is traditionally a qualifier for Dortmund.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 29, 2006 13:22
Most tournaments, championships excluding, are by special invitation only.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 29, 2006 14:56
I like the idea that the winner of Aeroflot gets an invitation to Dortmund. Quite a motivator for the Aeroflotniki, I am sure. And anyone who wins Aeroflot will probably not disgrace himself in Dortmund.
Posted by: Charles Milton Ling at June 29, 2006 20:14
I like the idea that the winner of Aeroflot gets an invitation to Dortmund. Quite a motivator for the Aeroflotniki, I am sure. And anyone who wins Aeroflot will probably not disgrace himself in Dortmund.
(Sorry if I am posting this twice, but I got an error message that seemed honest.)
Posted by: Charles Milton Ling at June 29, 2006 20:15
Just for Charles' information Bologan once qualified for Dortmund by winning Aeroflot. He went on to win Dortmund.
Many of these so-called elite players maintain their ratings by playing in these invitationals. I am pretty sure that if Anand or Kramnik were to play in the World Open , they wouldn't be able to get clear first.
Posted by: peach at June 30, 2006 01:29
Yep, peach, and his rating was only 20 points higher than Jobava's is right now. Rather than inviting a usual top-level also-rans like Bacrots and Ponomariovs of this world, I would rather have a 2600 player who is at the top of his game right now.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyenr at June 30, 2006 09:17
Peach
Well maybe if they sandbagged and played in the under 1600 section they would win. :)
I am really not sure what to think about that idea of playign in the opens. I woudl think top players just avoid them becasue playing lower rated players can hurt your own play.
Posted by: Niceforkinmove at June 30, 2006 11:12
I don't know if they get appearance fees for playing in Opens, either (maybe not even expenses). That could matter a lot for the world elite; and I suppose everyone would rather have a guaranteed payday than a situation where they only get paid if they place 1st or maybe 2nd.
World Open gets several dozen GMs, but few if any from world top-20. Even HB Global last year didn't get the elite (van Wely, Moiseenko, Motylev were the best they got).
On the other hand, Aeroflot is an Open, isn't it? And Lone Pine used to pull in the world's elite on a regular basis (granted that was a long time ago).
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 30, 2006 12:24
Just a short note on my game vs. Areschenko. Ofd course, I was totally lost after my terrible blunder c5?? allowing Rxd5. Instead of c5, Qa3+ Qd6 Qd3! was probably winning by force (computer check still needed!) and even though I saw the idea beforehand I totally messed up when he played Rf5. The fact that I had only a minute left (with 30 secods increment per move) might be an explanation but definitely no excuse.
Alexei Shirov
Posted by: Alexei Shirov at July 1, 2006 10:55
Alexei,
I will be honest that you are not my favorite player. But I continuously appreciate your effort to communicate with the fans and justify/explain your behavior to them, especially in format such as this one where you are exposed to direct response and criticism. Cheers for you and people like you making chess more popular.
Yura Kleyner
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at July 1, 2006 14:03
A busy weekend kept me from covering this event, a rapid double round-robin played Sunday and Monday here in New York. It was held at the New York Athletic Club, which hosted the two X3D sponsored Kasparov matches against Junior and Fritz in 2003. I'd also forgotten about it entirely, never having received any news about it, although I do remember seeing this press release turn up in the usual news trawl over a month ago. Nothing at TWIC either.
The players were Kamsky, Onischuk, Ibragimov, S. Polgar, Gulko, and Stripunsky. Kamsky won the tight event with 6.5/10, Polgar was second a half-point back after losing to Kamsky in the eight round. There are news items and photos up on Polgar's blog, final results at this item. I'm told games will soon be available.
Comments
I feel like a hypocrite tossing some fresh meat to the anti-Polgar fleas, but the USCF Forums have some back-and-forth sparked by a Paul Truong post that labeled this event "the strongest tournament ever held in the US." (The post in question now reads "the strongest DOUBLE RR", but another commenter indicated the original version didn't have that qualification, and Truong evidently edited his own post to fix it.)
Others cited some competition for the label, "strongest tournament ever held in the US": New York 1924; the Piatigorsky Cup tourneys of the mid-1960s (Fischer, Spassky, Petrosian, et al); Lone Pine (Petrosian, Karpov, et al). And if matches count, then there was Kasparov-Karpov 1990 in New York.
Still the Mayor's Cup is undoubtedly very strong, and Polgar taking clear 2nd behind Kamsky (and ahead of 3 present and former U.S. champions) is hugely impressive.
Posted by: flyonthewall at June 27, 2006 17:17
Well, it was also a two-day rapid with five rounds per day, so it shouldn't be mentioned on the same page as the Piatigorsky.
There's always a problem with making big claims. You end up retracting back to something like "the strongest double round-robin rapid tournament played on a Monday at the New York Athletic Club." At least they didn't call it a world championship. Hoping to see the games.
Posted by: Mig at June 28, 2006 07:02
Speaking for my fellow anti-Polgar fleas, I think what flyonthewall describes neatly encapsulates the sort of thing we complain about.
1. Susan does something pretty cool, which we honestly appreciate.
2. Someone tries to turn it into the best thing that ever happened.
Posted by: jonas at June 28, 2006 07:38
fly, mig, jonas,
Now you've done it. You've awakened the "Polgar Pixie" who will shortly visit this page and post something along the lines of:
"Look at all the wonderful things Susan has done for chess. Who among you has done as much? Why are you criticizing her just because you don't think her event was as great as New York 1924 or the Piatagorsky Cup? Stop picking on her! Give her a break!"
Posted by: greg koster at June 28, 2006 08:18
The official press release by the NYC Sports Commission stated that it is the highest rated RR chess event. The same was stated by the NYAC a month ago. So does the announcement on ChessCafe after the info was verified. The average rating of the event was 2665+ (USCF).
No one from the NYC Sports Commission, the NYAC or ChessCafe has ever compared it to the Piatigorsky Cup. A few other chess players did. These people are proud to host the highest rated RR event ever in NY City and they should have the right to do so.
I was doing 10 million things at once while trying to post a live update on the USCF Forum (per request from someone at the USCF) and 10 other places (since the live relay to ICC and other servers went dead due to the wireless connection problem inside the building - weather related). When someone pointed out the error, it was edited immediately.
Posted by: ChessPromotion at June 28, 2006 08:27
Let me clarify the above posting before someone has a heart attack.
Highest rated RR chess tournament in the US was what they put, not just highest rated chess tournament. They made sure they chose their words very carefully.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: Chess Promotion at June 28, 2006 08:50
I was referring to flyonthewall's comment, which did mention the Piatigorsky. Sorry to hear about the network troubles. When we set up the networks for the Kasparov matches there we insisted on wires and more wires. Of course we had to throw them down from the roof and balconies... Heck, my home wireless network is dodgy enough. Anyway, looked like fun, sorry I missed it. I imagine you're sending a report to Frederic?
Posted by: Mig at June 28, 2006 08:53
Yes, Mig. Frederic will get pics and game scores soon. The President & CEO of ICC was there to set up the tech stuff for broadcast. The wireless kept dying every 30 seconds even though they told us their wireless is VERY dependable. I tried to set things up with my mobile wireless but it didn't go well with the weather either. I have never done this before so it was quite an experience.
Most of the games were decided in the last minute or two. Some even went down to the last seconds. Only 2 games were relatively short to secure 1st place which was a very smart thing to do. Gata clearly was in excellent form. He's da man!
Going into the last round, Gata was leading by a full point. Alex O., Boris and Susan were tied for 2nd. Boris lost to Ildar with Black. Alex O. drew Gata with Black and Susan defeated Stripunsky with Black.
Gata and Alex Onischuk played very very well. Alex O. was the only player not to lose a single game. He was a little unlucky because he could have won another few games. He is amazing! I'm a big fan! Boris was great but got tired at the end. Alex Stripunsky played for win every game and it backfired this time. Ildar was just unlucky because he did play a lot better.
Susan missed clear wins against Boris and Alex S. in the first half and escaped with a draw against Alex Onischuk in round 9. She had many very difficult games as she's clearly still very rusty. She had luck on her side lately. She scored 4 wins, 3 losses, 6 draws in the last 13 official rapid games (against GMs) in the last 10 days against oppositions of about 2660-2670 (USCF).
The games went back and forth and the fighting spirit was incredibly strong throughout the entire tournament. We wish we could invite Hikaru to make the event even stronger. Unfortunately, he participated in the last Mayor's Cup and they prefer to see all new players.
Everyone really appreciates Gata, Boris, Ildar and the 2 Alex participating in this event!
Posted by: Chess Promotion at June 28, 2006 10:19
Great tournament, but worst excuse ever to not invite Hikaru!
Posted by: Greg Shahade at June 28, 2006 13:23
Perhaps, because it was a rapids event, the organizers were on barnrumpa alert.
But the real shame is that in the next Mayor's Cup event, where they'll want all new players, we'll not see "old" players Susan Polgar, Kamsky, Onischuk, Gulko, etc.
Posted by: greg koster at June 28, 2006 13:36
ChessPromotion,
Nice tournament!I couldn't find info about prizes?
Posted by: RRM at June 28, 2006 13:53
Chess Promotion ,
Nice tournament!I couldn't find info about prizes?
Posted by: RRM at June 28, 2006 13:56
Greg, that was the decision that was made by the organizers and sponsors. A substantial amount of money was put aside for this event and that is their wishes. Specific criteria was used to come up with the 6 potential invitees and those were the first 6 names that came up. It has to do with ratings, place of residence, current title holder(s), past invitation(s), etc. Hikaru was the 7th name on the list. Hikaru was also invited in past events.
RRM, the prize funds were not announced to the public. All players received a minimum guarantee + final placements. These players were true professionals in every sense. The NYAC also provided lunches and refreshments for the players, arbiters and VIPs.
Susan was the only who did not receive any money even though she was the chief organizer. She donated her entire 2nd place prize to the Susan Polgar Foundation to help organize the Governor's Cup with Governor Pataki in the fall.
Posted by: ChessPromotion at June 28, 2006 14:30
Chief organizer Susan Polgar and the other organizers are within their rights to omit Nakamura. They paid the piper, they call the tune.
Posted by: greg koster at June 28, 2006 15:05
"Greg, that was the decision that was made by the organizers and sponsors."
But Susan Polgar *is* the organizer, and I believe the foundation that she controls is the principal sponsor. Since she also played in the event, it is reasonable to ask, "Why these rules?" What kind of tournament would Melody-Amber be if return visits weren't allowed?
Posted by: Marc Shepherd at June 28, 2006 17:33
Susan was the chief organizer. That means that she came up with the idea, spent 3 months to raise funding, got the NYAC, the NYC Sports Commissioner, the Mayor's Office and many other people (sponsors for example) involved. They are part of the organizing committee and the request from a number of these people to invite 1st time players (IF POSSIBLE) was not unreasonable.
There were a number of sponsors that donated money to the SPF to organize this event and most agreed with the same concept. There are many good Grandmasters in the NY / Tri-state area and they wanted to give more Grandmasters a chance to participate.
Did I say that players are not allowed to play again? I said the the sponsors and organizers preferred to see new players. That's why Hikaru was #7 on the potential list. Kamsky was invited because he is #1 on the rating list. Susan was invited because she is #1 on the women's side. Onischuk was invited because he is the reigning US champion. Those were the obvious three choices. Then other criteria are used for the remaining 3 spots.
If we have to start the event over again, these are still the same first 6 players the organizers and sponsors would have invited and they were nothing but professional about their business.
Posted by: Chess Promotion at June 28, 2006 18:10
Dear Chess Promotion (Paul Troung),
Let me start by saying that it is quite admirable that such an event was held at such a prestigious venue with sponsorship and the backing of the NYC Sports Commissioner and the NYC Mayor's Office.
Having said that, I find it quite incredulous that you claim to have invited me to previous rapid events, when I have no recollection of this.
I think it says a lot about American chess when a tournament billed as "the highest rated American chess event" tournament just happens to be all Russians; quite an oddity, don't you think?
P.S. In the future, please post with your real name.
Regards,
Hikaru Nakamura
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at June 29, 2006 00:15
Dear Chess Promotion (Paul Troung),
Let me start by saying that it is quite admirable that such an event was held at such a prestigious venue with sponsorship and the backing of the NYC Sports Commissioner and the NYC Mayor's Office.
Having said that, I find it quite incredulous that you claim to have invited me to previous rapid events, when I have no recollection of this.
I think it says a lot about American chess when a tournament billed as "the highest rated American chess event" tournament just happens to be all Russians; quite an oddity, don't you think?
P.S. In the future, please post with your real name.
Regards,
Hikaru Nakamura
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at June 29, 2006 00:15
If you are going to talk about high rated matches on American soil (ala Kasparov-Karpov 1990), I seem to recall a match played in one of the World Trade Center towers between Kasparov and, um, Vishy something-or-other.
Posted by: Superpatzer at June 29, 2006 00:47
Another high-rated match on American soil: Lasker-Marshall 1907.
I also wonder why GM Nakamura considers Susan a Russian.
Posted by: Charles Milton Ling at June 29, 2006 00:57
Hi,
On the new www.uschess.org, launching on June 30 Friday there will be a long report on the Mayor's Cup, including games, pictures and comments from Kamsky.
Cheers,
Jennifer Shahade
Posted by: Jennifer at June 29, 2006 01:26
For such an event you'd invite
--the organizer herself
--the U.S. Champ
--the highest-rated U.S. player
But with three slots remaining, why wouldn't any organizer or sponsor invite the second highest-rated American, the rising star of American chess, a GM with a reputation for strong rapid-play?
Because he might overshadow Susan?
Because they think he's a barnrumpa?
Posted by: greg koster at June 29, 2006 05:38
Google reveals only 943 hits for 'barnrumpa' of which the top non-dictionary site is .. Chessninja.
It seems to mean something like 'spoiled child' (in Swedish).
Do all chess players know this word, as they know zugzwang or patzer?
Anyway, Russian and Hungarian are sort of the same, like Chinese and Japanese.
Posted by: gg at June 29, 2006 05:52
The literal meaning is childs bum; if I were to explain the meaning I would just say it means (somewhat derogatory) "not grown up (yet)".
Q
Posted by: Quely at June 29, 2006 06:57
Hmm...perhaps chess lexicologists could make a note to add 'barnrumpa' to the glosary / dictionary of chess terms.
Seriously, for those who missed it, the word has become something of an 'in-joke' at Chessninja ever since this year's Olympiad when a Swedish publication used it to describe some young player's behavior during one Olympiad game (I think it was Nakamura who got tagged that way, but don't quote me). The original article, in Swedish, got linked here and then lots of people found the word 'barnrumpa' cute and started repeating it.
Posted by: flyonthewall at June 29, 2006 10:16
Did we ever find out what spoiled-child-type conduct Nakamura was alleged to have engaged in?
Posted by: greg koster at June 29, 2006 10:31
Hikaru...just wanted to say I like your style. You seem to be a bit controversial in some of these threads, BUT you are honest and frank in your post above which I, for one, appreciate.
Posted by: Todd C. Reynolds at June 29, 2006 11:05
I agree Todd. Also this forum is (for me at least) a rare opportunity to interact with celebrities. If we insult and push them away, its only our fault. Being from Michigan, we dont see alot of elite players (Ben Finegold being the exception) up here so its kind of cool to have Hikaru and the rest respond to a question or comment that I might have.
Posted by: Tony West at June 29, 2006 12:17
You know, I find it highly insulting that GM Brynell would go and say such rubbish. The very fact that I was shaking my head during the game because I was displeased with the outcome makes me some sort of stupid fool? If anyone has ever seen a GM who didn't shake their head during a single game, I'll buy them a free latte. :)
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at June 29, 2006 13:15
Tony, if you like interacting with chess celebrities, and you also enjoy PLAYING chess, then you should spring for a ICC membership if you haven't already. Loads of titled players including Hikaru regularly take on all comers there, both 1-on-1 (usually in 5-minute) and in simuls (with slow time controls). In 3 months there I must have played games with at least a dozen GMs (probably more like 2 dozen), and several dozen IMs.
Does anyone know if they get paid for this? I always assumed that ICC was paying them (the GMs at least; probably the IMs too) to play with us patzers. But I noticed that when Chess Life just asked Onischuk if he plays online, he said no, I'm professional, I have no time to waste playing online blitz with amateurs. Well, duh, I didn't think Nakamura and all the other GMs were doing it for the fun of it. But maybe I was wrong.
Posted by: flyonthewall at June 29, 2006 13:20
Hey flyonthewall,
Actually, hard as it is to believe, most titled players on ICC do play for fun. Some players, like me, do get paid for doing simuls and time odds; however, I do not get paid to play blitz. I simply play on ICC to entertain the general masses.
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at June 29, 2006 13:39
Boy, "Chess Promotion" sure got awful quiet.
Posted by: Todd C. Reynolds at June 29, 2006 14:44
Its ok, everyone knows Hikaru is pretty weak at faster time controls, they probably wanted to save him from embarrassment!
Posted by: Greg Shahade at June 29, 2006 14:51
Sometimes you'll see organizers in a country invite a young local talent to a tournament so that he or she may get experience or at least some money. I guess organizers in the USA don't feel the same way. I'm not even sure it's so much about helping chess-youth as it is garnering interest in the tournament: some people might be interested in how the youth fares against the adults. Personally I'd like to see some injection of youth and hopefully get some attacks out of it. But it's the organizer's call. It'd be nice to have complete transparency in the selection process however, to see how everything calculated out to get those 6 players.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 29, 2006 15:50
Just to be annoying, I'll point out the Onischuk is a Ukrainian name and that Alexander's last fed before USA was UKR. So he's not Russian either, unless we're talking about "Greater Russia".
I think Greg Shahade's remark above is facetious. Hikaru is very good at fast chess, and if almost all of the games were decided in the last two minutes ... it is possible that he might have done very well ... and enjoyed doing so.
In Scotland, a child is a "bairn", so the Nordic word barnrumpa almost needs no translation. I'll donate another phrase, seen on the catamaran Victoria Clipper, which I believe was built in Norway. "Brann Slange", which I believe means fire hose, could be the name of a variation against the Dragon. I won't say a winning variation, because there is no such thing, but maybe one that takes the fire out of Black's play. There are many variations waiting for a name, here's a name waiting for a variation: Brann Slange.
Say, I noticed in the tournament snapshot on Susan's blog that Jim Berry and Frank Berry were the arbiters. In the photo they look like twins. Are they? I don't think they are long-lost relatives, though you never know. I am not related to Stephen or Neil or David Berry. Way too many Berry people in chess. I think I'll change my name. How about Alex Garcia Ivanov? Grin.
Posted by: Jonathan Berry at June 29, 2006 15:52
Did Ken Berry play chess? Larry Storch? Frank DeKova?
Posted by: greg koster at June 29, 2006 17:25
We all know that Nakamura is good at speed chess. But it the organizer's right to invite whom for whatever reasons they may have, with or without justification to the public. Naka shouldn't be upset at not being invited. Every tournament has its own purposes, if not inviting you fits the bill, you are not invited. There shouldn't be much to discuss on this topic.
Posted by: Morning at June 29, 2006 19:50
We all know that Nakamura is good at speed chess. But it the organizer's right to invite whom for whatever reasons they may have, with or without justification to the public. Naka shouldn't be upset at not being invited. Every tournament has its own purposes, if not inviting you fits the bill, you are not invited. There shouldn't be much to discuss on this topic.
Posted by: Morning at June 29, 2006 19:50
Let's confine our Nakamura comments to what has actually been posted. I don't see that Mr. Nakamura objected to not being invited to the Mayor's Cup. Rather, he disputed a claim that he had been invited to "past [presumably Polgar-organized?] events". I note that Mr. Truong has not replied.
Posted by: geeker at June 29, 2006 20:54
Of course organizers have the right to choose which players they want with or without justification to the public. I'm unfamiliar with US law but I think protection from discrimination only applies to full-time jobs, so organizers can even discriminate based on race if they wanted. A claim has been made that the decision was based on a set of calculations. It's up to them if they want to show how their algorithm came up with those six players. It's my opinion that Nakamura was particularly singled out. And I won't believe otherwise until I see the how those six players were calculated. It just seems suspicious to me to omit Nakamura, and I'm sure many others feel the same. But that's just me and the organizers don't have to prove themselves to me. They don't have to prove themselves to anyone, especially if no one questions.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 29, 2006 21:23
This is the 4th time that I replied to the above question by GM Nakamura. Unfortunately, I got this same message each time:
The Daily Dirt Chess Blog
Insider news and views from chess writer Mig Greengard
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
Posted by: Chess Promotion at June 29, 2006 21:29
Since it went through this time, I will repost (and modify a little) what I posted this morning since there are many posts since then:
Hikaru,
A. This is the Mayor's Cup. You were invited and participated in the last Mayor's Cup Invitational. If you check the NYC Sports Commission website, it has a link there right now of the last event. I never said that I invited you to rapid events even though I did.
B. You were also invited to the USA - St. Petersburg 2-game RAPID match in Nashville, TN which originally included Svidler, Khalifman, Sakaev, etc. You initially accepted the invitation then cancelled.
C. You participated and did well in 2 very prestigious International events which I personally recommended you to the organizer who is a dear friend of mine. This is the same organizer who just spent over $1 million to organize an incredible event next year. I was asked to be a part of this organizing committee.
D. I will not discuss the "all Russians" comment. I like you and respect your chess talent. My sincere advice to you is never to repeat this sentence.
E. Chess Promotion is my handle for posting. I post with the same handle on the US Chess and FIDE forum. It is not a secret.
The criteria used for invitations include ratings, place of residence, current title holder(s), past invitation(s), etc. and not just rating itself which you would have made easily.
You are a great player. I wish you the best with your chess career.
Posted by: Chess Promotion at June 29, 2006 21:37
This is my last posting regarding this topic. I do not want to be unfair to the organizers and sponsors who put in a lot of time, money and effort to put this event together and to the players who gave it their all in the tournament.
It is unfortunate that instead of focusing on the success of Gata Kamsky, we waste time discuss wild and baseless speculations.
Congratulations to Gata Kamsky for a magnificent result!
Posted by: Chess Promotion at June 29, 2006 21:52
Hi to all,
I'd like to say that Paul truong / susan Polgar make great efforts to make chess popular and manage to create/organize lots of events, youth and professional ones. The Mayor's cup is another great addition.
This being said, GM Nakamura is an exceptional player, last year US champ, and unbelievably convincing and entertaining on ICC and playchess.com.
I admire his rapid play, and lots of people follow him as well for the same reason.
He also performed very very well in the recent olympiad , in particular again the "russian" Grischuk.
given the fact that he lives in White plains, that he belongs to the world top 20 in rapid chess, and that he is a former US champion and member of the US team, I find it hard to believe he didnt meet the requirements for the Mayor's cup and understand fully his disappointment.
I have witnesses many quick games Kamsky-Naka ( i.e Talion-Smallville) on ICC , and they were highly disputed and entertaining, and every champ had wins against the other ones.
Chess gains when these two players play against each other.
Cheers.
Posted by: franck at June 29, 2006 22:25
Heh, I don't mind not getting invited at all...I can do other things with my weekends. :) On another note, spectators love to see exciting and entertaining chess, and I find it hard to believe that any of the others players can provide that at rapid chess with the exception of Gata and maybe Alex O.
To Todd,Franck, and others, thank you for the nice comments and thanks for keeping it real.
P.S. To clarify my "Russian" remark, I was referring to the broader Russia or former Soviet Union. I hope that in the future American chess talents like Josh Friedel, Elliot Liu, and Ray Robson have the chances to play in top flight tournaments. The least we can do is give chances to our best talents here in America.
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at June 29, 2006 23:58
If you are an immigrant and have been conferred American citzenship then I think you have the same rights as an American although I do believe you cannot run for president. There may be other differences but I'm unaware of them. I do know that the Soviets had their own training system for physics students and the Americans had their own too: Soviets read Landau, Americans read Kip, Thorton, Wheeler. How come a Russian did not read a Russian translation of Kip, Thorton, Wheeler, and an American did not read an American translation of Landau? The same laws of physics apply to both people. I think one of the reasons may have been that the Russians felt their system of education was not only superior but also distinctly Russian. Same with the Americans. I guess the reason I'm saying all this is that I believe one of the reasons chess is not so popular in the U.S. is because while Americans will view immigrants who are citizens as American (the debate on national immigration policy may shed doubt on that however), if they gained their abilities elsewhere, then they might not view it as a success that grew out of an American system. So in their view: hurray that an American is successful, but not a hurray that the success came out of an American system. Also one-on-one playground basketball which emphasizes athleticism is associated as an American style and team-oriented gymnasium basketball which emphasizes team skills is associated as a European style.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 30, 2006 01:01
A manager can do wonders for a career. I bet someone like Mig would be an excellent manager for certain young talents (helping them avoid PR landmines etc.)
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at June 30, 2006 03:10
Agreed a manager helps. But how much does 10% of nothing pay? In other words, full-blown PR/press agent types would probably be too expensive for all but a handful of players. Re. the Mig suggestion, it might create a conflict of interest with his chess journalism ;-) (another lucrative field, no doubt).
Posted by: geeker at June 30, 2006 12:47
Hikaru,
You must realize that there are still people out there today who also don't count you as a "real" American because of your skin color and birth place, so perhaps it's not the best idea to be complaining about "Russians."
Posted by: g at June 30, 2006 16:17
10% of nothing? Topalov has a good shot at more than $2MM/year for 5+ years....
It's labor-intensive, but not a full-time gig.
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at June 30, 2006 16:49
Check out an article on the Mayor's Cup on the new USCF website!http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/news_7_59.php
Reports coming this long weekend on the World Open.
Feel free to send me comments on the new site.
Cheers,
Jennifer Shahade
Posted by: Jennifer Shahade at June 30, 2006 21:42
after this long debate, what about going back to chess ?
I am looking forward to see what will happen in the next North East big tournament, the World Open in Philly .
Will the big guns show up in the 3 day schedule ?
Anyone on this forum playing the open and reporting from the scene ?
Franck
Posted by: franck at June 30, 2006 22:20
This year's Mayor's Cup was promoted as the "highest rated" rr. Will this event
actually be USCF and/or FIDE rated?
Posted by: Cyclone at July 1, 2006 10:51
USCF dual rated, yes. FIDE, no.
Posted by: Chess Promotion at July 1, 2006 15:40
g,
Let's not bring skin color into the discussion, as the skin color of the participants has never been mentioned by anyone or anything.
Posted by: superfreaky at July 1, 2006 20:54
If only so people will STOP SENDING THIS TO ME, ESPN.com has an article on "chessboxing" all over its homepage right now.
This was started as a sort of performance art concept by a nutty Dutchman. We did various items on it at ChessBase. Many thought it was a joke. Unfortunately, it's not. Shows how much ESPN cares about football. "NBA and NHL are over, time to run that chessboxing story. World Cup of what? Nevermind." Speaking of, my brother-in-law Jean-Benoit, who, incidentally, was the first person to send the ESPN link, can rest easy for a few days now that Les Bleus have defeated mighty Togo. AR-GEN-TINA!
Comments
At least ESPN & ESPN2 are showing all World Cup games live. Also, I can't blame them given the USA's fiasco.
Posted by: Murali at June 23, 2006 18:19
Well there are known chess players who have a penchant for throwing punches. There are known pugalists who have a penchant for pushing pieces.
Let them chessbox!
Posted by: superfreaky at June 23, 2006 18:38
Aronian v Gormally: The Rematch. Publicity is already done!
Posted by: Ashish at June 23, 2006 21:07
Tate
Posted by: DP at June 23, 2006 22:23
Weightlifter Boris Kreiman? Oops, hold it, do they test for steroids in chessboxing? ;-)
Posted by: geeker at June 23, 2006 23:40
Unless he's a horrible patzer, my money'd be on Evander Holyfield.
Posted by: Herb at June 24, 2006 00:10
Speaking of soccer, today Argentina plays against Mexico. As a mexican, I have to say that our chances are near to nil...but hope is the last a thing a flustrated world cup watcher looses.
Posted by: santiago at June 24, 2006 09:02
Dunno about Holyfield. Among heavyweight fighters, Lennox Lewis (who recently held a chess exhibition in NYC) and the Klitschko (sp?) brothers are chessplayers. I wouldn't give Holyfield the nod against any of them, although Vitali, the better fighter of the Klitschkos, recently retired from the ring due to injury.
Posted by: geeker at June 24, 2006 09:29
I think both Lennox & the Klitschkos are supposedly about A-level strength (American rating-wise; strong club player strength, I suppose, for Europe (?)); anybody know if that's accurate? If so - or at least if they're about equal in strength - even though L.L. & Vitaly are both retired from boxing, they could finally duke it out over the chessboard...
Posted by: rcfchess at June 24, 2006 14:31
I about kicked in the tv last night when ESPN 2 was showing competitive DOMINOES. They were showing it just like poker. WHEN WILL WE GET CHESS?!? It cannot be because of interest because I have never heard ANYONE say, "Dominoes is cool." There are no dominoes movies. Heck, their pizza even sucks! At least chess has a pretty good cookie from Pepperidge Farms.
Posted by: Evan at June 24, 2006 19:28
America performed really badly at the World Cup in Germany because they had to use American players. Had they been allowed to import all their players from abroad as in the recent Olympiad, they would have done much better
Posted by: Jim at June 24, 2006 22:09
Not sure about the Klitschkos' chess playing strength. I think they played an exhibition against Garry Kasparov some years ago, which was covered to some extent on chessbase.com. ISTR that they played better than Boris Becker, but not at "A-level strength". Granted, not much of a sample to rate from.
Lennox Lewis seems pretty good. He had a strong showing in a recent NY exhibition "challenge". I have no idea of the level of his opposition, however.
Posted by: geeker at June 24, 2006 22:29
Lennox is a fan of chess, and he always says in interviews that boxing is like chess. Lennox would be perfect for the first chessboxing match in America in 2007. Problem is that not only is he a decent chessplayer, he's one of the best heavyweight boxers ever, so he'd likely dominate every match. Still he should at least try one match.
Posted by: Leto at June 25, 2006 03:17
Yeah, as if ESPN noticed that the NHL season was over.
Posted by: Colby Cosh at June 25, 2006 04:29
Looking forwaed to seeing Lennox Lewis in the ring with Jonathan Speelman. I bet Judit Polgar has a wicked right hook though.
Posted by: Jim at June 25, 2006 04:49
It's an interesting idea. One who is good at boxing will take a mental beating in chess, which can affect his boxing. One who is good at chess will take a physical beating in chess, which can affect his chess.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 25, 2006 15:04
When you consider all the punch-drunk ex-pugilists who end up with Alzheimer's, it doesn't look like chess and boxing are a good match.
Posted by: geeker at June 25, 2006 15:14
Some of us had very good intentions when sending you this. Thanks
Posted by: Tony West at June 25, 2006 21:04
Mig's on another long weekend it seems! : )
Posted by: Morrowind at June 27, 2006 13:08
I am reminded of an old Saturday Night Live. The guests were George Foreman and Bobby Fisher. Booby played e4, George counter with a right to the jaw. After was the interview -
SNL - George, were you going to respond the same way to 1 d4 ?
GF - No, I was gonna hit him with a left if he played d4.
Posted by: Harlock at June 28, 2006 14:07
"America performed really badly at the World Cup in Germany because they had to use American players. Had they been allowed to import all their players from abroad as in the recent Olympiad, they would have done much better."
What a ridiculous statment. Actually all of the participants for the US in the Olympiad were US citizens. We are a nation of immigrants, Jim, and just because they do not have "american" names like Jim and Bob do not make them any less american. Noone forced them to come here and play. They were not "imported" like most of the good beer in this country is.
Posted by: Mendrys at June 29, 2006 15:44
I was pleased at the Olympiad result and Nakamura's addition to the team. It was two years in waiting. I do believe there is a paradox in American society. People freely come in are called "Americans" after a few years residence, but you could live for 30 years in China or Japan and never be considered Chinese or Japanese. There is a cultural context that is very specific in these countries.
America does not have a definable culture which allows people to emigrate and adopt American ways of economics and consumerism. Many try to adopt names like Ellen, Joe, Chip and such, but that does not really make one more American. It only makes it easier to navigate the system. There are certainly advantages to having a loose concept of nationality, but many Russian players appear to choose one nationality or the other when it is advantageous.
Mendrys... I think you are disillusioned. If I go to the Ukraine and get citizenship in six years, am I any less Ukrainian than Sergey Karjakin? Of course I am... no doubt about it. Let's be honest. However, that does not mean that Russian players cannot make valuable contributions in America which they have done.
It is an interesting paradox, but I do believe the spigot of chess emigres will trickle if U.S. Chess does not improve.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at June 29, 2006 17:38
"America's" performance in the Olympiad tells us nothing about the strength or otherwise of American chess. Players are easily lured from abroad by big bucks. Unfortunately many are too weak in the face of hard cash and sell their birthright, i.e. their nationality, too easily.
There should be rules to stop this happening.
Posted by: Jim at June 29, 2006 21:00
"Unfortunately many are too weak in the face of hard cash and sell their birthright, i.e. their nationality, too easily."
Sounds like what the world needs is a good course on racial hygiene, eh, Jim? Otherwise even more people might buy into the wrong-headed, subversive notion that what matters most about you is what you become or are capable of becoming -- rather than where you (or your great-grandparents) came from.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 29, 2006 23:23
Hehe. "Home-grown" American chessplayers (eg Patrick Wolff, Tal Shaked) leave chess because there's no money in it. But them damm furriners "are easily lured from abroad by big bucks."
Posted by: geeker at June 30, 2006 05:35
Daaim, disillusioned? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you meant deluded? Actually, I am neither. Are you saying that the only to way to claim a nationality is to be born there? One must be careful when they starting thinking like this. It often leads down the slippery slope of xenophobia and racism. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling you a racist. I can't possibly know this. However, I have met too many people in this country who think that the only "real" americans are WASPS(white anglo-saxon protestants) and we would be better off if all others would just "go back to where they belong". This being said I am very grateful for the rich cultural diversity that our emigres have brought to us.
Posted by: Mendrys at June 30, 2006 09:41
Daaim, disillusioned? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you meant deluded? Actually, I am neither. Are you saying that the only to way to claim a nationality is to be born there? One must be careful when they starting thinking like this. It often leads down the slippery slope of xenophobia and racism. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling you a racist. I can't possibly know this. However, I have met too many people in this country who think that the only "real" americans are WASPS(white anglo-saxon protestants) and we would be better off if all others would just "go back to where they belong". This being said I am very grateful for the rich cultural diversity that our emigres have brought to us.
Posted by: Mendrys at June 30, 2006 09:57
Pertaining to "chess boxing" I brought this subject up to some friends and they think it's hilarious. The contrast makes it almost interesting. I am still trying to decide who would be favored in such a match. A Strong chess player with some boxing skills or a Strong boxer with some chess skills. The decisive blow in a chess game could be the loss of a queen but no immediate checkmate but a decisive blow in boxing often ends up with someone unconscious on the mat.
Posted by: Mendrys at June 30, 2006 12:19
Racist? No, I utterly despise any form of bigotry. I am not talking about nationalism at all, but about the criteria for picking teams to play in international competitions; sports, games.
I thought that was obvious from what I said before, but the p.c. police are everywhere and constantly looking for offence. I am very offended by being alluded to as a racist.
Posted by: Jim at June 30, 2006 20:19
From Yahoo:
"one of the biggest sports phenomena of the past decade, despite spending most of my life in the Carolinas, NASCAR's epicenter. Consider this: The number of people who spend six or more hours a week following the sport has grown almost 20% in the last five years, to 75 million, according to market researcher Ipsos Insight."
75 m people spending 6+ hours a week????? And we few chess fans seem to begrudge ourselves whatever time we spend on chess.
Posted by: nazkar at July 1, 2006 02:16
I like it. play chess one round then pound then sand out of him the next.
Posted by: Glenn at July 5, 2006 01:19
Before boiling off into the usual gasses of idiocy, there were some interesting comments to a recent thread about chess as hobby, sport, profession, and waste of time. There are too many famous and pithy quotes in the "what is chess?" department to trot them all out here. They are widely available on the web and there is a fine compendium of them in the "Chess Addict" books by Fox and James (who, incidentally, must always be named together, like "Lennon and McCartney" and "wine and cheese").
For some reason many people like to play down their love of chess. Often, I suspect, this is because they aren't particularly good at it. Having hundreds of chess books and playing online 20+ hours per week is borderline lunacy for a master, so the logic might go, and acceptable for a GM, but must be a dangerous disease for a 1500, not to mention the many casual players who have never acquired an OTB rating at all. This, of course, is piffle. Many are obsessed with hobbies that have little or no objective measurement of success. People who assemble train sets and visit train museums and buy countless train books aren't worried about being good at it. They like it and that's enough, and it's also enough for chess.
I'll concede it's intriguing the way so many people are fascinated by a game they don't really understand in the same way as the people with whom they are fascinated. I don't agree, however, with the cynics who say a 1400 watching GM chess is like a monkey looking at a watch. It's more like a monkey looking at a television commercial for bananas. With diligence and outside commentary plus computer analysis, they can push their noses right up against the screen, although they don't really get any bananas. (The players, not the monkeys. It's a metaphor.) But they might understand that and learn to enjoy the image. No wait, it's a like a badger looking at a picture of rhubarb...
In the immortal words of EasyFish's sig in the message boards, "What if you just like buying chess books?" That most of them are ostensibly directed toward making you a better chessplayer doesn't mean you can't enjoy them without becoming one. Look at those space-age Nikes you're wearing. When is the last time they were used to run as fast as you could, or for anything other than walking to the fridge for another Coke? Then there are the myriad pleasures of fandom. The arguments, the history, the news and results, the statistics, and the players themselves. We love to follow the new prodigies and the old lions. A fraction of the visitors to the major chess sites and to event websites even bother to look at the games themselves. It's far more than a game. It's a sport and a culture with a rich history - and present - full of fascinating figures.
What part of life is chess for you? I have the blessing/curse of working in chess all the time, if not full-time (which would imply a greater income from it). I play less now than I ever have, but know far more from analysis and writing. I still derive a lot of pleasure from the game itself, playing and looking at games, though I don't buy many new books. There's a considerable list of things I would refuse to give up before chess, however, if you'd like to play a little game of What If...? Certainly reading for pleasure would have to stay. Hmm, wine or chess? Wine. Chocolate? Hmm, tougher there. Writing, designing, music, even photography would probably top chess on my list. Never look at another chessboard versus never take another photograph? Or never read another Rilke poem? Never ride my bike again? Sorry, chess. While it's probably my #1 hobby in terms of hours spent, it also strikes me as being one I could live without. (This is obviously made much easier by the fact I'll never have to make such a choice.) But I'm certainly not ashamed or concerned about the amount of time I spend on it.
Since there are a limited number of hours in the day it's fair to say we also make trade-offs with both baser and more noumenal things, such as sex and, say, mathematics or philosophy. That's getting a little too philosophical itself, and giving up chess for sex isn't an option chessplayers are supposed to have by definition, at least according to much of popular culture.
Chess is no waste of time at all, no more than anything else that brings us pleasure. As with most activities, this enjoyment comes not only from things directly related to the game, such as competition and beauty. There is also the social element, in person, online, and the feeling of being part of a global, and historical, community. You are here.
Comments
Chess history is a big part of CHESS for me. I read most of Winter's columns. I have a complete set of WASHINGTON CHESS LETTER/NORTHWEST CHESS LETTER/NORTHWEST CHESS starting in 1947. Chesscafe.com has a number of articles on chess in the past. One can play over games played many many years ago or one played today.
Chess is a common language all over the world not that I have traveled to any where other than USA and Canada. Postal chess has hooked me up with players in other countries.
Also if one wants to create chess events that can be done with out a lot of expense. The general public seems to like watching atleast of a little while chess events held in shopping malls.
Posted by: Russell Miller at June 22, 2006 20:08
I like this essay.
See if Newsweek will publish it in their "My Turn" column.
Posted by: jdmarino at June 22, 2006 20:39
Chess has certainly been a great source of entertainment for me. Luckily, it has always remained a game; it makes it much more pleasurable: the playing is freer, the wins sweeter and the inevitable losses are easier to digest.
Chess is the typical good mistress: sweet, elusive and capricious; utterly enjoyable, readily available, but ultimately very unproductive. Enjoy it while you can, but don't take it too seriously...
Posted by: tgg at June 22, 2006 20:47
Here's a question inspired by Mig's essay: At what point is someone "good" at chess? It could be argued that if you can break 100 at golf, then you are a good golfer, as only approximately 10% of golfers ever break 100 (which obivously includes the very large numer of players who only play golf once, or a few times a year or what have you). A 1400 at chess would very likely defeat 99% of the players on the planet 99% of the time, which again includes those huge number of people who simply know the rules (en passant notwithstanding *wink*). On chess.fm GM John Fedorowicz said that when players hit 1900 that they started causing him a few problems (or words to that effect).
Also note that abilty to play, and understanding of the game, are not one in the same thing. There is nothing really to understand about tactics or calculation (unlike positional play or strategy or planning), which must represent the lions share of the GMs advantage over the rank and file (no pun intended). Simply the ability to concentrate well might also be a big determining factor of success in chess.
Posted by: rockrobinoff at June 22, 2006 21:58
I'm an under 1200 player who just doesn't have the good sense to give up the game. I love it in the way people love playing golf on the weekend: they know they will never make the PGA tour, but it's fun to drink beer and hit some balls. It's my excuse to leave the house for a weekend swiss, my weekly club meetings and to sit at the local coffee shop and study. It's my one "academic" interest and my one outlet for deep study. It's also social for me. I've met a lot of great people playing chess.
I guess my point is this: I like bananas.
Posted by: Evan Shelton at June 22, 2006 22:01
For me, chess is a diversion from all the sex, drugs and rock n' roll. On TV I mean!
No, really it is an obsession. Getting better and better at it everyday and still sucking - that must look weird from the outside.
Posted by: RingLord at June 22, 2006 22:29
For me, chess has a powerful aesthetic element. In fact that is the dominant factor in my interest. Both as a spectator, and even more so when I play, I am overwhelmed by the search for beauty at the board. Beauty and truth.
I find those aspects far more important than the competitive side. I guess that's why I'll play over games from the big-league events when I have time, but I don't care much about which GM comes out on top, which World Champion was better than which other World Champion, etc.
And although I play blitz games online and with park hustlers, I don't really enjoy that. I only enjoy playing when it's serious -- rated, and with the time control as slow as possible, to maximize quality. That's where I can dream of creating an object of beauty myself ... and that is what keeps me coming back again and again.
It's a myth that only a professional-strength player can execute an original and beautiful conception over the board ... just as it's a myth that only a professor of literature can write a brilliant and inspiring poem or short story.
And you don't even need Fritz. I grew up reading month after month in Larry Evans' Q&A column, ideas sent in by people of just about every rating class, that improved upon recent or historic GM games, established opening theory, or even long-accepted endgame reference works. All this came way before engines were born.
A sacrificial combination (especially the "true" rather than "sham" sacrifice) is awe-inspiring because it’s a practical demonstration of mind over matter. At its best, chess embodies the triumph of spirit over crass materialism. Sacrificing your pieces to achieve checkmate represents the triumph of visual imagination, of creative foresight, over brute force.
In that sense, chess players are like magicians, or circus acrobats -- we can make the 32 pieces do tricks that mere mortals can barely imagine.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 22, 2006 22:58
To paraphrase an old joke:
The doctor told me I had to give up half my chess life. I can't decide whether to stop talking about it or thinking about it...
Posted by: RedIvan at June 22, 2006 23:25
I must not be the only person here who has a hundred books and never completed one. And reading them like a novel is not really enough to get much out of them... one has to do that solitare thing or at least think seriously about what one is reading. All in all, despite the fact that I am pretty sure I could reach a good level by devoting myself seriously to the game(to the tune of 20+ hours, probably not playing online), I don't see the reward in doing so. I have done what is easy enough for me in chess and reached the limit of "my cruise potential". Nakamura's is 2660 FIDE. Mine is 2280. What to do? There are so many things that make a much bigger difference in the world. If chess brings no money and makes no difference(it is just a game) then what is the reason to really spend time ? Out of a feeling of inadequacy for not being good enough? To me there should be some positive motivations to invest a lot of effort.
Posted by: DP at June 22, 2006 23:55
Chess utterly transformed my life. I was going along through high school as a sports jock (soccer, baseball, and basketball), minding my own business, when one day a friend of mine talked me into visiting the chess club. I saw some guys playing blitz chess and I was hooked. The idea of relying solely on myself rather than upon a team was part of it.
Because of chess I changed my major in college; ended up in the career that I am in (international diplomacy), and married my wonderful wife and had two great kids. I am strictly an amateur and can't play much, but I have still had fantastic moments, such as winning the US Amateur West, or playing simuls against Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov, Short, etc. I am frustrated as can be at how terribly the world of chess is run, but I could not give up chess for anything- it is in my blood. And, every rare once in awhile I manage to play a game that I can never forget....
Posted by: knight_tour at June 23, 2006 00:51
No different than watching golf; you don't have to be good at it to enjoy it. It can be alot of things: sport/hobby/passion/entertainment/recreation/passion or whatever - which reminds me of a favorite quote of mine - "to those that understand no explanation is necessary, and to those that don't understand, no explanation is possible."
Posted by: Tim at June 23, 2006 00:56
Great essay Mig.
[1]
Someone posed the direct question: "IF you knew now that you would never get better at winning chess games, would you quit chess now?".
It made people think, but the consensus answer was "I would Not quit". I feel the same way.
As you essay points out, there a numerous ways to enjoy chess.
[2]
A strong argument can be made that in at least one important sense, chess is the greatest spectator sport of all time.
We have all replayed games from decades ago. We have enjoyed their clever ideas, their elegant executions, and their intangible beauty.
In contrast, I would have no interest in watching a fine football from 32 years ago. I would watch today's game live, but not an old football game, not even an old Super Bowl (would be boring).
[3]
Chess is currently suffering from Poker Envy, and chess wishes it could be on ESPN2 TV every week. Until someone produces a demo video of a properly designed chess TV show, we chess players may have to content ourselves in the knowledge that nobody buys Poker books to replay great matches held years ago just for the beauty and enjoyment of it.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
Posted by: Gene_M at June 23, 2006 01:06
I started playing seriously in high school, but when I realized at around ~1700 that I wouldn't improve without spending more free time than I had, I gradually gave up playing--and went over to directing.
How did that work out? Well, it's been over ten years, and I'm still flying three thousand miles several times a year to direct tournaments.
In a way, the chess community's become a form of bizarre, extended family--the odd relatives one only sees during the holidays...
Posted by: cynical at June 23, 2006 04:40
how many concert goers understand how a fugue works? nevertheless they leave the concert hall with a mental erection.
Posted by: pliscon at June 23, 2006 05:33
Chess seemed to save my life when I was a kid. I was a total misfit at school, but got along well at tournaments. I gave up the game for 23 years while focusing on playing live obnoxius rock and roll and recording a tall stack of obscure records and cd's that will outlast my chess games but are still in the "amateur" category which never bothered me. I never wanted to be a professional musician and was never capable of being a chess professional. My 3rd passion is for professional wrestling. I didn't have the contacts to get into the biz. I regret that a bit. A hobby is a hobby. I know lots of chess players who never read a book on the game who seem to get more fun out of it than lots of jaded tournament players. Likewise plenty of fans of wrestling seem to appreciate it's charms even more than some of the non-fan body builders who use it as a means of making a buck. Amateur musicians seem better adjusted for the most part than "signed" recording artists who face lots of pressures to shape their "art" according to the whims of the label bosses. I pity people who feel like their hobby isn't working if it's not earning them a living. Hey, if you love boats and the water..DON'T take a job as a sailor or a boat salesman.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at June 23, 2006 06:33
Back in the 1950s, Jazz took off in New York. The reason it did was that musicians could get a card, and actually get gigs and get paid for their work. I think the same thing goes for chess. There's a horrible 'effort/cash return' ratio in chess. The competition is one nice, the history is interesting, but unless chess players get a better and more consitent source of income, it will never get out of the backwaters an into prime time. It'll always be at the mercy of political hawks running things and lining their own pockets. Chessplayers will always get the raw and muddy end of the stick, unless they can make a living at it. That's my 2 cents.
Posted by: BAG at June 23, 2006 07:26
"noumenal"? You've probably been reading too many of Nigel Short's columns.
Posted by: David Long at June 23, 2006 07:28
My two hobbies have one thing in common: I am better than most, but nowhere near good.
My chess rating is 1800. My softball leagues that I play in are C/D class (which is about the equivalent of an 1800 chess rating).
I categorize myself as 'slightly better than average' in both games. I have a library of chess books and equipment and a nice collection of softball videos and DVDs to try and get better.
I probably wont ever get any better at either game as I have been playing both for a long time now. But I still continue to play and love both games.
Posted by: Tony West (Detroit Area) at June 23, 2006 08:18
If people like buying chessbooks they can buy mine. :)
Just click on the link!!
Posted by: Mark Howitt at June 23, 2006 08:26
My pet peeve is being criticized for spending hours on my chess by the same people that spend hours in front of a television every day.
Posted by: Mike at June 23, 2006 08:27
Great expression by Mig.
Chess is the one sport/art/science that you can indulge in without having to spend alot of cash, especially with the internet around. In fact, I have never come across any other discipline where history, research, technology and human psychology have all rolled compactly into one whole and become extremely accesible to an ordinary person.
Posted by: Mehul at June 23, 2006 08:48
I started playing chess 5.5 years ago at the age of 34: I needed a hobby. I stopped watching TV, I played chess on the internet, I bought chess books, I became the president of my local club. (!)
Whenever my wife complains that I spend too much on books, I threaten to take up golf. (I think my entire library cost less than a modern driver and putter.)
Occasionally I have bouts of "why am I wasting my time on a game?" doubts. After all, I could be learning to play an insturment! But I like the fact that you can play and enjoy yourself even while you are still learning. I tried to learn to play the guitar as an adult, but it takes too long before I could make music, so I quit. If my chess game were a guitar, I'd be making terribly discordant sounds. But my opponent and I still have a good time, and, occasionally, we harmonize.
Posted by: jdmarino at June 23, 2006 08:59
My online chess rating is ~1200 on FICS and my golf handicap is ~20. I picked up both hobbies fairly recently and love them both enough to make the girlfriend somewhat dissatisfied :-)
Posted by: simsan at June 23, 2006 11:53
I love Chess because it gives so much of joy when you win a beautiful game and it can also arouse feelings of blackest melancholy when your position is lost. It tells us a lot about our life, our wishes, our hopes, and our dreams.....
Posted by: Ryan at June 23, 2006 12:21
Personally I have never won a game that I was satisfied with or one that gave me any creative satisfaction at all. Just the cheap thrill of a victory or the terrible pain of having played moronically(only occassionally do I feel like my opponent played really well and I did a decent job creating resistance). Perhaps this leads to my attitude towards chess. Very much addicted to and in love with the beauty of well played chess, but lukewarm towards tournament play.
Posted by: DP at June 23, 2006 12:44
My wife and daughter sometimes complain about the time I devote to chess. Apart from that, in the 34 years since finishing high school, my chess activities have brought only positive feedback from non-chess family, friends, acquaintances and work colleagues.
I can think of just one exception: a girlfriend who was atypically anti-intellectual and status-conscious in a naive, almost trailer-park sort of way. Her hostility to chess, which I wasn't involved in anyway during the period I was involved with her, was no greater than the complaints she voiced about other intellectual activities I tried with her, such as an academic seminar about the consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall that I recall bringing her to circa 1990. She was as hot as the planet Mercury, but for obvious reasons, it didn't work out.
My experience is hardly unique. I know some people feel a powerful need to believe that chess achievement impresses no one outside the chess world, but they should first look up the official bios of Ken Rogoff, Alan Trefler, Max Zavanelli, and Andrew Kalotay -- just a few of the names that occur to me off the top of my head. Michael Rohde is another. His story might not be posted on the Web, but he once told me that his GM status helped when he was getting started as a lawyer: his employer offered clients a chance to play chess with him, as a perk of doing business with them.
So it turns out that, other than a junior-high schoolyard 40 years ago and New York Military Academy summer camp at about the same time, the only place where I can count on finding people (albeit just 1 or 2 of them) who try to make me feel guilty or inferior about choosing to make chess a significant part of my life, is ... a chess fan site!
Life is strange, ain't it?
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 23, 2006 12:46
I suppose I should only add (if only for personal satisfaction and I guess that it applies to many) that the only reason I continue to play in tournaments is the dream that it will one day just click(at least to some extent) and that I will start to play sensibly. So my answer to that question of would I continue to play chess if I knew (100% as opposed to 95% as it stands) that I would never improve is definitely an emphatic no.
Posted by: DP at June 23, 2006 12:53
So that's what happened to Alan Trefler!
I remember Soltis' column on 'Expertise,' and his story of how Trefler went 8-1 and tied with Benko at the 1975 World Open--in his article, Andy only said that Alan had become a master, but no longer played competitive chess...
Posted by: cynical at June 23, 2006 13:17
Well put, DP.
Every sensible and well-balanced individual will reach a point where he questions the benefit of putting serious work into chess. I reached that point about 10 years ago, and since then, only play casual games and follow GM action online.
The game, without tournament play, is probably more enjoyable (for me, of course - other people may rightfully feel it is just the opposite) than ever.
Posted by: tgg at June 23, 2006 13:17
Your threshold of chess quality needed to generate creative satisfaction is clearly much higher than mine, DP. Sounds to me like it may be too high; an overabundance of perfectionism, perhaps?
I get plenty of creative satisfaction from my serious play, and have a nice long collection of games I am proud enough to publish (including some losses and lots of draws, along with the wins).
Granted, you're a stronger player than I am. When I looked up your tournament records awhile back I saw that you beat a couple of 2300s and/or 2400s in just about every recent event you played. Surely that must have produced at least one real nice game, no?
One game currently awaiting (re-)publication via one of my articles (not a game of mine) was a 19-move brilliancy where a guy rated 1828 annihilated a future IM, who was rated 2307 at the time. It was played in 1970 in a local weekend tournament in Chicago; yet I recently found it published on the Internet -- ON A FINNISH-LANGUAGE SITE! My guess is that the winner (Dave Oshana) probably feels that game alone justified all the effort he put into chess over the years.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 23, 2006 13:31
I started out as a 1400 player. Remember playing through games of Fischer, Spassky and Larsen. I saw some logic. It gave me pleasure. Now I am a 1900 player, understands more of those games. Still I think the pleasure of seeing GM games is the same for a 1400 and 1900 player, you are just thinking at a different level.
Chess is an alternate world. Man is a hunter, warrior, fighter, competitor. Chess fulfils a basic instinct ... Chess is logic, strategy, inspiration. The joy of thinking and creation. The goal of mastery. Or simple. A beautiful mix of sport, science and art.
As I have turned 40, my chess is becoming more entertaiment and less ambiton. With internet live games chess is also becoming a serious time waster...
Posted by: Akselborg at June 23, 2006 13:39
He jugado ajedrez desde siempre. Empecé a entrenar cuando tenía que participar en torneos infantiles y lo que más me gustaba era viajar y conocer nuevas personas. Luego lo dejé, ya por motivos que cuando la gente crece empiezan a aparecer "cosas más importantes" en nuestra vida. Hace 2 años lo volví a tomar en serio. Ese bichito que siempre había estado dentro de mí salió y empecé a jugar torneos y me divertí mucho, pero entoces quería jugar cada vez mejor y siguió un entrenamiento duro y una presión de jugar siempre bien, no cometer errores, etc. Entonces me di cuenta de que en vez de disfrutarlo como debía ser, me preocupaba en demostrar que era mejor que otros. En conclusión si vamos a la metáfora del mono y el reloj o la banana, me he dado cuenta que siendo un mono de 1400, o un niño como prefiero llamarlo yo, se disfruta más cualquier cosa, por que juegas simplemente porque disfrutas haciéndolo y punto.
Posted by: poderchenko at June 23, 2006 14:53
I started off with a rating of 1600 when I was 18. I was confident that I could easily get to at least 2000. Twenty years later I am at a floored out 1800. I seem to have reached my limit (about 19 years ago), but I don't want to admit it. There were several times when I quit, since the lack of improvement was frustrating, but I keep coming back to it.
Maybe the reason we don't improve is that we don't know how to do it. Different things might work for different people. There is no easy way to figure out the best way.
I love the intensity of playing in tournaments. I think that If I can learn to concentrate and focus on the game at hand without letting the mind wander off, I have a chance to improve my results.
I also enjoy travelling to different place and making new friends.
If you have any comments on my chess at
http://gettingto2000.blogspot.com/
please let me know
Posted by: iw at June 23, 2006 15:07
Chess-playing is enjoyable, because at its essence the game is a battle of ideas, conducted in a fair and objective manner. The ideas put forward can be mild, aggrressive, brilliant or stupid ... but they are your ideas, and win, lose or draw, you know that you achieved what you deserved. And the game has wrapped around it a diverse and rich culture that I have not found duplicated anywhere else. In what other endeavor would you find the #3 player on the men's team of a Muslim country to be a Chinese woman! (Qatar at the 2006 Turin Olympiad)
Posted by: RP at June 23, 2006 15:28
Chess is an excellent way for me to re-affirm my stupidity.
Posted by: John Fernandez at June 23, 2006 15:31
Off topic...
ESPN makes CHESSBOXING its top feature!
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=chessboxing
Posted by: H L M at June 23, 2006 15:35
Two pieces which I feel have some relevance to the story:
Smyslov, getting old, once complained to Taimanov that it was getting harder and harder for him to calculate long variations. "You don't need to," said Taimanov. "You have the best analytical tool in your right hand." Thus Taimanov commented on Smyslov's great sense of intuition behind the board. When I play game after game without analyzing too much and especially when I watch great GMs games with each other, I feel that I am developing that sense of position, that ability to look at the board and say: "Hey, this looks bad," or "Hey that pawn line over there looks weak," or "There might be an opportunity for an exposure check here." We learn to recognize patterns in a chess game better.
The second story is a paraphrase of an old Japanese proverb. "No path for which destination is its only reward is worth walking." If I only wanted to get better at chess or even to win a game rather than actaully enjoy playing it would make the great game seem a petty pointless intellectual competition between men with too high an opinion of themselves. My dream is not to beat Kasparov. But I would love to play a game with Morozevich.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 23, 2006 18:52
Heck I'd rather beat Kasparov than Morozevich. Then I can say I beat the best. No pain no gain. I enjoy the gain. Hence I endure the pain. Maybe I enjoy the pain because I enjoy the gain. Here is what Papoose had to say in his work "Born to Win":
"Winning is everything, let me explain what I think
Practice makes perfect, so when working I dont relax
I practice a lot, therefore I'm perfect and that's a fact
Been through some hard times while the burner was on my back
It was rough, but I was determined so I adapt
Gettin what Im deservin, holla back
Game over you lost like a person with outta map
"
You spend time hitting the endgame tables so you can unleash their full fury against your opponent.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 23, 2006 20:26
I feel that in chess practice doesn't have to be perfect or even good to be enjoyable. You could say I enjoy the pain, because to me, playing chess or studying chess is no pain at all. Occasionaly frustration, sure :)
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 23, 2006 21:57
Chess is an integral part of my life. It's part of who I am. In my own personal "periodic table", chess is a noble element. Or maybe it's more like oxygen - if I hold my breath for too long, I start turning blue, and I'm forced to breathe, to play a game, two games, ten games! Chess is my entire life rolled up into a 5-minute experience: the joy, the failure, the determination, the satisfaction. Chess! Chess!
Posted by: ComputoJon at June 23, 2006 22:49
I consider playing a tournament game equivalent to entering a jungle naked knowing in advance you may be attacked in the dark by unknown predators - winning a Chess game should be accompanied by a Tarzan yell. To me it is trying to make sense of the unknowable, setting sail on the Atlantic in a sailboat, basically an awesome and very humbling challenge. --Brian Wall
Posted by: greg koster at June 23, 2006 23:29
Chess is introspection. Each game we play tells us something new about our psychological makeup at that point in time.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at June 24, 2006 05:48
I enjoy reading endgame books and watching GM games on the ICC. I haven't *played* a game in some time. There are many ways to enjoy the hobby, as Mig points out.
Posted by: Russ Palmeri at June 24, 2006 18:29
On a chess forum I posed the question 'If you could see into the future and discovered you were never going to significantly improve your abilities as a chess player, would you quit playing chess?
http://www.chessexchange.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2396
I think that Gene Milener may have been refering to this question in his earlier post on this thread.
I think it is an interesting question because the desire to improve seems to be a strong motiviating force in many players. However, eventually most people seem to settle to a certain level of ability at the game and continue playing because they enjoy the game. However, the dream of improvement lingers and for some remains an essential reason why they play.
Personally, chess brings me so much enjoyment in so many ways (being part of the chess community that Mig so elegantly desribes) that it could never be a waste of my time.
Posted by: SonOfPearl at June 25, 2006 03:36
I like bughouse more than chess. Did not Sun Tzu say that plundering your opponent's supplies and recruiting your opponent's soldiers is worth 10 tens time your supplies and 10 times your soldiers? I look at the grandmaster games and it's all Ruy Lopez anti-Marshalls. Sometimes I'm upset that pawns can't move backwards. If it's not fun then I'll stop and not continue out of inertia. Sometimes it takes a little nudge to realize when to hang up your scoresheets.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 25, 2006 04:11
Bologan leads with 4/5 after beating Harikrishna today in another sloppy game. The Indian #3 played an ill-advised exchange sac and couldn't back it up. The other decisive game was also very messy. Rublevsky seems to have recovered his game, which must have been lost with his luggage en route to Turin along with all his non-tacky shirts. Today he beat Volokitin thanks to his own speculative exchange sac and a poor spate of defense by the young Ukrainian. The Russian champion is in clear second a half point behind Bologan.
Grischuk-Mamedyarov should have been the third decisive game, though it's hard to say in whose favor. Grischuk was applying pressure and avoided a few draws only to lose his way during the attack. The Azerbaijani #2, who didn't play in Turin after some noisy problems with his federation, then missed several chances to collect the point, failing to find the narrow path to safety with his king. The counterintuitive 41..Kf7 would have done the job. In round 4, Ivanchuk continued this tournament's unofficial opposite-colored bishop theme and ground out a win over Mamedyarov with a nice king walk.
Comments
Karjakin at +0 =3 -2, that's quite a step down from the recent olympiad.
Bologan is on the roll, great showing by him.
Posted by: Martin at June 21, 2006 18:39
I'm beginning to think that Karjakin is the next generations Morozevich or Shirov; brilliant chess one tournament and nothing much the next. In my mind its that inconsistency that will keep him from becoming a world champion.
Posted by: chesstraveler at June 21, 2006 20:04
Or maybe it's not very reasonable to draw such conclusions from the results of a 16-year-old.
Posted by: acirce at June 21, 2006 20:26
Perhaps too much chess for most of these guys. I suspect the majority of them have been going none stop for several months now.
Posted by: pundit at June 21, 2006 22:49
Look at the early games of Karpov. Or even Tigran Petrosian. Relatively wild, attacking crushes. Then they learned how to be world champions.
Posted by: Julian Maltese at June 22, 2006 02:31
Misha Tal on the other hand didnt have to unlearn his attacking game to become WC!
Posted by: d at June 22, 2006 05:19
I guess Tigran Petrosian played one of wildest WC matches against Spassky in 69.
Posted by: Ando at June 22, 2006 05:30
Oops, I mean in 1966, when he actually won :)
Posted by: Ando at June 22, 2006 05:59
This is a very interesting tournament because to me it is a competition between 12 GMs each of whom could be expected to be a dark horse in a super GM tournament or to flounder completely, even in a lower-rated one. It is interesting to see which of them step up their game. My money is on Mamedyarov, Bologan, Grischuk and maybe Nisipeanu.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 22, 2006 08:58
I've followed Liviu's career since Vegas '99; it's been amazingly regular in its inconsistency, if one would pardon the oxymoron.
Posted by: cynical at June 22, 2006 09:51
Ivanchuk has to be the favorite, he has twice the experience and half again the talent of the rest of the field (Grischuk and Karjakin aside in the latter case, perhaps). Of course, I'm surprised Ivanchuk can walk straight given how uneven he is...
Bologan is a weird one, all right. He and Shirov are the poster children for crosstables that look like:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111
or
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Posted by: gmc at June 22, 2006 16:49
I wonder what the result of the Harikrishna - Mamedyarov game was . The round 6 result shows that Mamedyarov won whereas the crosstable shows Harikrishna won.
Posted by: peach at June 22, 2006 18:18
Harikrishna won, and quite beautifully.
Posted by: Mig at June 22, 2006 18:44
Hey, Mig:
What is the format of the US championship going to be ? Is it possible to publicize? The AF4C has drastically reduced the number of qualifiers.
Posted by: peach at June 22, 2006 19:42
Sort of. Various aspects of it are still up in the air. I've talked to Erik Anderson recently and he's talking with Goichberg. Hard to announce things piecemeal. I was supposed to get at least a little info to update the site this week, but nothing so far. I'll be doing an item about it one way or another this week to at least clarify what we don't know.
Posted by: Mig at June 23, 2006 01:30
I've been perusing various event sites lately, looking at bad ideas and concocting new ones. Am I the last person to notice Short giving Anand two FIDE KO titles in his capsule bio at the San Luis site? (New Delhi and Tehran were part of the same event.) Admittedly, the site is so riddled with errors that one little one is hardly worth mention. The site itself is clunky and, worst of all, unpredictable.
Many of the event sites I like to look at aren't chess sites at all. I like the non-invasive pop-up nav menu for the US Open golf tournament. Most American pro sport sites are heavily into video, Flash quickly becoming the standard. This isn't as attractive for chess, although I'd definitely get more into video clips for interviews. The proprietary ChessBase video system, shown to great effect during the Olympiad, has the benefit of synchronizing the board with the video feed. Scaling that all down to a single Flash video stream gets blurry. Perhaps a video of the player synced with an independent Flash or Java board?
A big question about event sites is whether or not to spend time and money on making things especially to keep visitors occupied and coming back. Interactive stuff, that is: message boards, contests, polls, vs the world games, etc. It's not worth the expense if the site is only expected to receive traffic for the few weeks of the event. But a building event with qualifiers and such can generate interest. San Luis put up some news on occasion, but nothing interactive. This is typical, if you don't count the increasingly prevalent betting site links, that is, and I don't.
Comments
Mig,
The purpose of the site should be to provide information about the event. There are plenty of other places in cyberspace in which to go to satisfy needs for contests, polls, etc.
A chess event site should make it easy to find what chessplayers most want to find when going to that site. For me that would be scores, crosstables, standings, the games themselves, analyses, the schedule, and a summary of each round. Helpful and enjoyable, but secondary are pictures, stories, and interviews with the players, key chess "dignitaries", and organizers. After that, do whatever you like -- have a good time.
A final thought. The only point of intentionally trying to keep someone on a site longer is if there is revenue -- most likely advertising revenue -- tied to it. If there isn't, I don't see the point.
Your tournament sites, by the way, are far better than average.
Posted by: Karl at June 20, 2006 08:35
Karl is thinking along the same lines as me: the difference between interactive content and content. I agree with him that the most necessary thing is easy access to results, schedule, standings. I find a brief biography of each player to be a major improvement to any site. I also really really love the idea of a play-chat room, wherein one can play with other people who (presumably) are watching/following the tournament.
One of most underused features is player interviews. FIDE's Olympiad site had an opportunity to play against some unknown Italian GMs (IMs?). What I wouldn't give for them to instead provide even brief interviews with Olympiad participants about things like world championship, their games, other participants, etc. Way too often our only access to GMs is what Mig says Leko said somewhere, as opposed to an actual interview. One of my favorite little features in the past years was in the Libya FIDE Championship you could actually watch little video interviews with men like Topalov. I got a better idea of what those guys were like from that than I have from many months of reading about their games.
I think the best and most effective way of maintaining traffic is through creation of frequently updated message boards (such as organizers blogging/giving topics) and something like Chesspro.ru where you can watch the game develop, chat with others and see Shipov's comments at the same time.
Contests/polls are really more of a "click once and destroy" feature.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 20, 2006 09:15
San Luis was a good site, but I really loved the World Team Championship site at Israel. For me that was very far the best site I have ever seen about a tournament. It had good interviews and good data. The Turin site was ugly. It was very hard to find what you were looking for.
Posted by: poderchenko at June 20, 2006 10:55
Woudn't it be great to have a few key positions from the current event for players to start at and play each other from. That would be good for keeping us hooked to the screen a little longer.
Thanks for a high quality site.
Posted by: JimBee at June 20, 2006 11:56
The Wiener Zeitung site for Turin was superb- stats available at your fingertips almost imjmediately after the round finished.
I also like the Corus site.
Posted by: Al at June 20, 2006 12:14
How about some web site maker genius coming up with the perfect web site "package" and just give it to all the chess tournaments to use if they want to. With instructions on how to hook up cameras, dgt chess boards, clocks, and various other packaged goodies.
Posted by: Morrowind at June 20, 2006 14:29
The "best" tournament Website features, for me, are those that make me feel as though I am there--a true spectator. In addition to the scores, results and cross tables (what might be pinned to the walls at the tournament hall), I enjoy the live games (especially the DGT broadcasts), photos/videos of the players and playing site, video/text interviews with interesting participants and, just as an added bonu, a live Web cam.
So far, the best web presentation of a major tournament has been the last couple of AF4C US chess championships.
My two cents worth...
Posted by: voss at June 20, 2006 18:53
Interviews (both audio and video) are definitely a value-added feature and I've decided to do more of them. I did several in Turin and I'm only upset that I had to leave and could not do about 25-30 of them.
http://www.thechessdrum.net/newsbriefs/2006/NB_TurinTalk.html
The Daily Dirt was by an important blog dealing with the Olympiad and I visited regularly and sent a few posts. I had planned to put a blog on The Chess Drum prior to the Olympiad, but simply ran out of time before leaving for Turin. Interaction is really what is going to drive traffic. The mantra used to be content, content, content. NOW... it's content PLUS interaction, interaction, interaction.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at June 21, 2006 01:27
I believe that the posters to this thread are right on target when it comes to player interviews. Many other sports have found that they can expand their attractiveness by making the players, and their personalities, more visible to the casual fan, or even non-fan. Many soccer fans wouldn't be able to accurately describe the off-sides rule, but they know who Ronaldinho is, and his remarkable life story.
Daaim's site, http://www.thechessdrum.net/newsbriefs/2006/NB_TurinTalk.html, does have excellent interviews from the Turin Olympiad.
Posted by: RP at June 21, 2006 10:44
It hardly takes a genious to create an informative website. Look at the website I created for the Las Vegas Masters http://www.clarkcountychessclub.com/masters/
I don't have years of experience writing flashy web pages etc. but just having the necessary information and keeping it up to date constantly was enough to provide the chess enthusiast enough to keep coming back, and I got plenty of compliments too.
Posted by: Chris at June 21, 2006 13:09
Short treats Anand's first KO win to be the Lausanne one. He won the KO tournament but lost to Karpov in the superfinal.
It can hardly be said that Karpov was playing in that KO.
Posted by: Proloy at June 21, 2006 14:54
No. "He was not to be denied forever: he romped home against Alexei Shirov in Tehran 2000, and on the home soil of New Delhi the following year he repeated the feat."
That's two titles, which really was one. Tehran was the final of Delhi. He mentions Lausanne in passing only in that he lost to Karpov.
Posted by: Mig at June 21, 2006 15:32
Back in 2003 I posted "20 questions for chess event organizers" to list the items chess fans most often asked for.
http://jaderiver.com/chess/promote.html
Posted by: Duif at June 21, 2006 17:01
The Ukrainian supertournament at the Foros spa is in Yalta producing some odd games of mostly fighting chess. Credit the thermal waters or the strange time control? The official site has analysis and more from former colleague GM Mikhail Golubev. ChessBase is reproducing his reports with pictures. One of them shows FIDE prez Kirsan Ilyumzhinov chatting on one of those cell phones used by his voting delegates to send photos of their ballots so they could collect their bribes. Hey, it's not my story.
Local favorites Ponomariov and Karjakin are at the bottom of the table with 0.5/3. Karjakin lost to Shirov today after chewing a poison pawn on a2 that even Fritz would eschew. All six games were drawn in round two, several of them in short order, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that most of them contained considerable fight and interest. Smackdown averted.
Mamedyarov and the ever-unpredictable Bologan lead with 2.5. I'll never figure out how Nisipeanu managed to lose today's oppo-bishop endgame to Bologan. Volokitin and Harikrishna played one out to the bitter end with a logical draw. White made a lot more progress than I thought he'd be able to make though. Grischuk and Ivanchuk have drawn all their games so far. Karjakin's losing 32..c3??? against Bologan in round one is so bad I wonder if he thought White's bishop was on g2.
Comments
...c3?? is easily explained by black thinking Rxc3 Bh3 Rxd8 will lead to mate on the 1st row, forgetting that the rook, fresh from moving to d8, can interpose on d1.
Stranger things have happened in time troubles before.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 19, 2006 20:05
Nice game between Mr Mamedyarov and Mr Areshchenko today. I haven't heard of the latter before this tournament while the former looks to be a star on the rise.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 19, 2006 20:10
Yuriy, Areschenko is another widely known "star on the rise." I think he is about the same age as Mamedyarov (i.e. still eligible for World Junior, or at least, was eligible until this year). I think he also played in last year's Russian Championship Super-Final; and had to be very near super-GM level just to get in.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 19, 2006 22:44
Jon Jacobs:
You are full of s*it. Areschenko is Ukrainian. How could he have played in the Russian Super Final ?
Posted by: peach at June 19, 2006 22:51
Jon, maybe you're confusing Areshchenko with Jakovenko?
Posted by: geeker at June 19, 2006 22:56
Christ, peach, can't someone just be wrong? Please be civil or work out your inarticulate hostility somewhere else.
Posted by: Mig at June 20, 2006 00:29
It is not hostility. I am not hostile towards everybody else. He always has this pedantic holier than thou attitude in the other threads. If you feel it is inappropriate, feel free to delete it as well as my current response.
Posted by: peach at June 20, 2006 00:45
Uh . . . Jon Jacobs is one of several posters here who has always been nice and not afraid to admit being in error. If you feel that he is somewhat paternal stylistically, that is no reason to curse him out. Honestly, there are better targets on here and elsewhere.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 20, 2006 06:11
Go easy on peach, he's usually sensible, and not one to blindly parrot nonsense of the sort that Stern (the holiest of the holier-than-thous on Dirt) routinely posts about me on other threads. Peach probably just had some souring experience last night that worked its way into his comments.
Yeah, I realized my mistake about Areshchenko's nationality minutes after posting my comment, but I didn't feel it necessary to get out of bed to post a correction. I had confused the Russian Super-final with the FIDE World Cup, which was played around the same time. The latter was how I became aware of Areshchenko. (He eliminated Stripunsky and Balogh in the first 2 rounds, before being eliminated himself in round 3 by the eventual champion, Aronian.)
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 20, 2006 09:30
well, the "-enko"-s are easily confus-able, that's a scientific fact. reminds me of a dream I had, where Ponomariov, Kasimjanov, Mamedyarov, Radjabov, and Sadvakasov were disputing the title of "Most Exotic Chess Player Ever".
Posted by: Joseph Mutzenbacher at June 20, 2006 10:23
I think there is no disputing the title of "Worst Exotic Chess Dream Ever" :)
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 20, 2006 10:48
Stumbled upon this subvariation while preparing the latest White Belt. White to move and not resign.
Great stuff. Almost as good as the Cambiasso goal in Argentina's 6-0 demolition of Serbia & Montenegro. (Hendriks-Spanton, Hastings Masters 2006 with 11..Kh8 instead of 11..Rxf7 as played.)
Comments
1.Qg3! Rxf7 2.Qg5!?
Posted by: Kenilworthian at June 16, 2006 18:08
Brilliant.
Posted by: acirce at June 16, 2006 18:17
Well, I'll probably just show my ignorance here, but if 1. Qg3 as suggested, why not 1..,Nxg3. Then what for white??
Posted by: vxqtl at June 16, 2006 18:47
1. Qg3 Nxg3 2. Ng6+ hxg6 3. hxg3 with mate
Posted by: macuga at June 16, 2006 18:53
2. Ng6+ hg
3. hg+
Posted by: cynical at June 16, 2006 18:54
What's wrong with the fairly straightforwars:
1. Qf3,Qxe5 2. Qxh5
Then, g6 won't do anything because just Bxg6
Still don't like white's position, but at least no immediate resignation.
Posted by: vxqtl at June 16, 2006 18:59
1. Qf3 Qe5 2. Qxh5 Qxb2
Posted by: macuga at June 16, 2006 19:02
Then, after the suggested:
1.Qg3! Rxf7 2.Qg5
why not 2..., Qxg5
Posted by: vxqtl at June 16, 2006 19:05
Oh, duh, after 2. ,Qxg5 3. Nxf7+. Ok, now I finally get it.
Posted by: vxqtl at June 16, 2006 19:15
I don't see why the immediate 2.Nxf7+ isn't possible though, not that 2.Qg5 isn't pretty.... :) Black doesn't have to play 2..Qxg5. The question was not how to win, but how to avoid losing.
Posted by: acirce at June 17, 2006 05:53
I was instantly reminded of the motif from the following game which is set to appear in a future issue of Chess Life. (See the position after Black's 25th move): 1. e4 c5 2. d3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd7 5. Be3 e5 6. f4 exf4 7. Bxf4 Be7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nc6 11. Ne5 Nxe5 12. Bxe5 b5 13. Qg5 Ne8 14. Qg3 f6 15. Bf4 b4 16. Ne4 Qd5 17. b3 f5 18. Ng5 Qd4 19. Re1 Bf6 20. Be5 Qd8 21. Nf3 Bb7 22. d4 cxd4 23. Bc4+ Kh8 24. Nxd4 Bh4 25. Ne6 Bxg3 {THIS POSITION} 26. hxg3 Nf6 27. Nxd8 Raxd8... eventually ending in a draw.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 17, 2006 10:53
The puzzle was very nice, but still Cambiasso's goal was much better (Viva Argentina!) ...
Posted by: Pascual at June 17, 2006 20:58
BTW, About Aerosvit tournament, I rememberred to have talked about it two weeks ago, mentioning it in this blog (during the chess Olympiad, when I mention about the attention the whole incident involving Gormally received distracting the attention of chess news).
But it seems that Ukrainian chess stars are not quite interested in soccer, so they preferred to be in full activity instead (perhaps this indiference towards soccer may explain the poor performance of the Ukrainian soccer team).
Posted by: Pascual at June 17, 2006 21:06
I guess Mig forgot to analyze the whole variation. After Qg3 R